Disposed

R.Jayakumar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/8540/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought an order forbidding authorities from enforcing pending temple removal orders until an appeal was decided. The court disposed of the writ without merit, granting an interim stay on the challenged order and reserving the appeal for a later hearing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted on orders dated 26.02.2021 pending hearing of appeal and interim protection application.

R.Jayakumar Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition No.8540 of 2021
and WMP No.9104 of 2021
R.Jayakumar .. Petitioner
Vs
1 The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department No.119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034
2 The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments
Department Mayiladuthurai Division
Sitharkaadu Mayiladuthurai District
3 The Fit Person
A/m.Ayyanar Vazhikariyan Lada sanyasi Temple
Vazhavur village Kuthalam Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District
Also the Fit Person /Executive officer
A/m Veerateswaraswamy Temple,
Vazhavur village Kuthalam Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District
4 T.Rajalingam
S/o.Thangavelu Kizhaveedhi Vazhavur
Kuthalam Taluk Mayiladuthurai District
5 K.Pandian
S/o.Kannappan 51 Subramaniapuram
Mayiladuthurai District
6 N.Manivannan
33 Om Sakthi Nagar Nallathukudi village
Mayiladuthurai District
7 N.Gandhimathinathan
33 Om Sakthi Nagar Nallathukudi village
Mayiladuthurai District. …Respondents

¶6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents 1 to 3 from initiating any action in furtherance of to the orders dated 26.2.2021 of the 2nd Respondent made in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.Nos.6520 / 2018 -1 / A1 and Se.Mu.Na.Ka.Nos.6520 / 2018 - 2/A1 till the disposal of the appeal in A.P.R.C.No.15846/2021 dated 22.3.2021 on the file of 1st Respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh

¶9

Government Advocate – R1 to R3

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department as well as the Fit Person of Arulmigu Ayyanar Vazhikariyan Lada Sanyasi Temple and Arulmigu Veerateswaraswamy Temple, Vazhuvur Village, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District (temples in question)/R1 to R3 and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter finally even the stage of admission. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed finally even at this stage. In the light of the order that is to be passed in this matter, there is no necessity to issue notice to the private respondents/R4 to R7.

¶13

The petitioner prays for a mandamus forbearing the official respondents from initiating any action in furtherance to order dated 26.2.2021 passed by R2. He states that he is the hereditary trustee of the temples in question and has been removed from the said post, which is patently incorrect and contrary to law.

¶14

Since statutory appeal has been filed bearing A.P.No.15 of 2021, pending before the Commissioner/R1 and the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has filed an application for interim protection along with the appeal, I express no opinion on the merits of the matter or the existence of the prima facie case, if any.

¶15

Suffice it to say that the application for interim protection which has been filed by the petitioner along with the appeal on 22.03.2021, will be taken up for hearing and disposed in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondents and any other persons whom R1 may deem necessary, either over video conference or physically as may be mutually convenient to the parties, to be intimated to the parties sufficiently in advance, within a period of four (4)

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

weeks from today. Till such time, there shall be an order of interim stay of order dated 26.02.2021.

¶18

The Writ Petition is disposed as above. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS VII)

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1 The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department No.119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034
2 The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments
Department Mayiladuthurai Division
Sitharkaadu Mayiladuthurai District
3 The Fit Person
A/m.Ayyanar Vazhikariyan Lada sanyasi Temple
Vazhavur village Kuthalam Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District
Also the Fit Person /Executive officer
A/m Veerateswaraswamy Temple,
Vazhavur village Kuthalam Taluk
Mayiladuthurai District
Writ Petition No.8540 of 2021
and WMP No.9104 of 2021
PL(CO)
KKN 27.04.2021

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Jayakumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jayakumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Mohammed Usman Vs The Commissioner

Srs Travels and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Sales Tax officer

Hotel Anbagam Residency Vs The Commissioner

K.Guman Singh Vs Te State of Tamil Nadu

M/s. ShriNandhi Dhal Mills India Private Limited, Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Saji P. Iype Vs The Commissioner